The Male Nipples : Genesis Debunked

[Anomalocaris]

Even if you're an evolutionist, the "female first" in womb theory is what you should believe. This is because evolution holds that the sexes split by mutation in the womb (or wherever reproduction was accomplished). Before gender, all organisms were allegedly ancestors of the female. I.E. we both agree that babies are originally female, so this is an outdated argument.

What a completely utterly ignorant idiot you are.

[Drich]

Genesis claims that God created Adam then Eve came second. All of our body parts and organs serve a purpose. Except for males, we have nipples. Nipples are meant for women to feed their babies to give them the necessary nutrients to grow up healthy. Men do not have this ability. An intelligent creator that created a man first, would not have given him nipples. I've heard (not sure if it's true though) that all babies are originally female, then as they develop in the womb, they stay female or gain the necessary male hormones. Because of this, men are left with useless nipples. The only way for Christians to dismiss this is to claim God has a nipple fetish.
After I reread what I previously wrote, this idea sounds as crazy as Kurt Cameron's banana theory. Oh well, I'm sticking to it!

Maybe I missed something but what does this have to do with Adam? Do you think Adam or eve had belly buttons?
Since they were not 'born' in the traditional sense I'll assume you will say no.
So that means it is possiable for Adam and Eve to be slightly different than their offspring.

[FallentoReason]

Maybe I missed something but what does this have to do with Adam? Do you think Adam or eve had belly buttons?
Since they were not 'born' in the traditional sense I'll assume you will say no.
So that means it is possiable for Adam and Eve to be slightly different than their offspring.

Belly buttons and passing down of genes aren't two things that are comparable. It's true that e.g. if you clone an animal it won't have a belly button but this says nothing about passing down genes.

---

Even if you're an evolutionist, the "female first" in womb theory is what you should believe. This is because evolution holds that the sexes split by mutation in the womb (or wherever reproduction was accomplished). Before gender, all organisms were allegedly ancestors of the female. I.E. we both agree that babies are originally female, so this is an outdated argument.

Ah, but is it really an outdated argument? This would only be so if both of you were correct about the claim that all babies are originally female. Well, the creationist scientist suggests otherwise:

Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’.

http://creation.com/male-nipples-prove-evolution

So maybe your stance needs to change accordingly.

[Ace Otana]

Don't forget the tail bone people.

[fr0d0]

Don't forget the tail bone people.

Is this a new race? Like the lizard people?!

[Ace Otana]

Don't forget the tail bone people.

Is this a new race? Like the lizard people?!

No, I'm talking about us homo sapiens. We has tail like other animals.

[Anomalocaris]

Maybe I missed something but what does this have to do with Adam? Do you think Adam or eve had belly buttons?
Since they were not 'born' in the traditional sense I'll assume you will say no.
So that means it is possiable for Adam and Eve to be slightly different than their offspring.

What, no second vote for all males of all species being "in womb mutation" of females, including species that have no wombs, or aren't even animals?

No solidarity amongst fundamentalists, no agreement even about what the inerrant bible is inerrant about?



They had no naval because they had no existence, moron, Since they never existed while their alledged offspring did, I'd say the difference between them and their offspring is rather large, moron.